Don't stop... believin'... Hold on to that feeling...

[quote name='thrustbucket']I already said that and was bashed for it.[/QUOTE]
You can't seriously be nailing yourself to a cross over this comment, can you?

[quote name='UncleBob']I'll give him credit for admitting he was wrong. Now, fix it. :)[/QUOTE]
He just finished spanking his own party on national television after punking the opposition party a couple of days ago. I'd say that's a reasonable start. I like the new direction and hope it continues.
 
"So, much of what Americans tell their children is wrong. It doesn’t really matter how long you go to school or even necessarily how hard you work."

Would it be inappropriate to post a youtube link to "Jizzed in my pants"?
 
If there's actually a debate, on TV, that's honest and not political bullshit, then I might start believing we've hit one of FoC's dimensional rifts.
 
ack1.jpg
 
Thus the response.
"We know there are a number of issues with bipartisan support that we can start with when the 2,700-page bill is put on the shelf," volunteered Mitch McConnell. "The best way to start on real, bipartisan reform would be to scrap those bills," said John Boehner.
 
Boehner - We want to do bipartisanship our way.

LOL.

EDIT: so, thrust, you have that cookie for Obama yet?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='speedracer']Obama says he wants a sit down with Dems and Repubs over health care. Bring your ideas and every single one will be debated. He wants it live on national tv stations.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100208/ap_on_bi_ge/us_obama_health_care

Sounds like we're getting our wish Bob.

Great link Msut.[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately he's a year too late. At this point, the Republicans are going to be thinking "hey, all we have to do is oppose Obama and we make major gains, maybe even take over the majority, this fall." If Obama had made this proposal early last year, when he was freshly elected and pretty popular, the Republicans probably would have had to go along. Now they'll just invent excuses (see article) for not doing it. All the while, a fundamental reform of our system, which is more necessary with each passing year, gets short shrift.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Unfortunately he's a year too late. At this point, the Republicans are going to be thinking "hey, all we have to do is oppose Obama and we make major gains, maybe even take over the majority, this fall." If Obama had made this proposal early last year, when he was freshly elected and pretty popular, the Republicans probably would have had to go along. Now they'll just invent excuses (see article) for not doing it. All the while, a fundamental reform of our system, which is more necessary with each passing year, gets short shrift.[/QUOTE]

Were the Rs playing the obstructionist game last January?
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']Were the Rs playing the obstructionist game last January?[/QUOTE]

Some were, sure. There are always those who play the obstructionist game regardless. But I would expect he could have gotten a decent number of Republicans to play ball when pitching from a position of strength instead of weakness.
 
I don't know elprincipe. The Republicans look like they're in a hell of a bind right now. Obama has called their partisan bluff.
"If we can go step by step through a series of these issues and arrive at some agreements," Obama said, "then procedurally, there's no reason why we can't do it a lot faster than the process took last year."
Click to expand...
So what do they do? If they sit on their hands, they look like the obstructionist assholes they are. If they sit down and talk, then Obama's gonna spank em again (does anyone really think there's a bucket of guts in the whole Republican body right now?) and a unified bill would be almost certain to come to a vote.
Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said Monday that the first question for Obama should be: "Did you lie about moving forward on malpractice reform?" He was alluding to the president's earlier remarks about possibly curbing malpractice lawsuits, which is not included in the health bills passed separately by House and Senate Democrats in December.
Click to expand...
Which would put Obama, on national television, in the position of agreeing to tort reform in exchange for bill support (which is the whole damn point of bipartisan negotiation, apparently the Republicans have forgotten that). What on earth would they do then? Obama's gonna take a few on the chin and strip the bullshit that got in on the bill, then demand more in exchange for Republican ideas. Obama gets to be apologetic directly to the American people, clean up the crap, AND force Republican support. There's just no bad outcome for him here.

I can't see a way out for the Republicans. I bemoan Reid, but jesus h McConnell and Boner are so far out of their league it's crazy. Only those guys could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
[quote name='thrustbucket']Yes he has a cookie from me.
I'd be lying if I said I wasn't skeptical that it will follow through as we hope, but in this case I hope I am wrong.[/QUOTE]
There's just no way this can be put on Obama anymore. The only way it won't happen is if the Republicans decide it's against their party interests to do so. It's clearly in our national interests. They're already backpedaling and attaching ridiculous strings to the negotiations. Can't blame the president for that.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']... sounds like a waste of time to me.[/QUOTE]

I would argue the debates are a waste of time, too. Obama can just grab national air time and point out where they agree and force those issues to closure.

Debates strike me as hokey.
 
1) Prince knows damn well the Republicans were planning on nuking the legislative process from the get go he is just using this to dust off the ol' talking points.

2) There is nothing preventing the Democrats from getting through practically everything through reconciliation but themselves. They are still in a position of strength no matter what said princeling thinks, if anything this is being done as political gamesmanship (for once the Democrats seem to be not fucking it up) or to avoid the mother of all hissy fits.


See also:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
 
Even as Republicans publicly welcome President Barack Obama's call for a bipartisan confab on health care, some privately worry that he might be laying a trap to portray their ideas as flimsy.
Click to expand...
How can your idea be portrayed as flimsy if you're standing in the room defending it?
The Boehner-Cantor letter sought to even the sides a bit. It called on the White House to invite pro-Republican analysts and Democratic lawmakers who voted against the Obama-backed legislation in December.
Click to expand...
The answer: they can't. They actually need to invite analysts because the lawmakers can't defend their "own" ideas.

Your modern GOP.
 
To be fair, most members of Congress aren't economists or medical professionals. I'd prefer they get experts* in to help form such a massive overhaul instead of sitting back thinking "Well, this sounds good! Put it in!"

*And by experts, I mean real experts. Not just someone with a degree that happens to agree with your own opinion.
 
Define "real experts" though. I cringe and curse and throw things at my tv when I see news channels engage in a falsely equivalent debate wherein a professor of economics has to debate with someone from a "think tank," and it's presented as a reasonable discussion. Not "here's a dispassionate scientist who has morals and ethics debating with someone who's paid to find a certain conclusion and paid to hide those contrary to that."

So, sure, let the CBO in. But who else?
 
[quote name='speedracer']I don't know elprincipe. The Republicans look like they're in a hell of a bind right now. Obama has called their partisan bluff.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. It's going to be exceptionally hard for Obama to call anyone's bluff right now, as he is damaged goods. Looking at the polls, which all politicians do, Republicans are going to see that if they sit tight and oppose Obama until November, they'll make big gains in Congress and perhaps even take a majority in the House. There just is no political incentive for them to work with Obama now, whereas a year ago there was. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, that means a rather impotent Congress this year, at least on controversial issues, since the GOP can and will filibuster things like health-care reform and cap-and-trade (although they need not do so for the latter since it doesn't even enjoy anywhere near unanimous Democratic support either).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Define "real experts" though. I cringe and curse and throw things at my tv when I see news channels engage in a falsely equivalent debate wherein a professor of economics has to debate with someone from a "think tank," and it's presented as a reasonable discussion. Not "here's a dispassionate scientist who has morals and ethics debating with someone who's paid to find a certain conclusion and paid to hide those contrary to that."

So, sure, let the CBO in. But who else?[/QUOTE]

Obviously, whomever is brought in by one side will be demonized by the other side. But I'd rather a paid shrill of a medical professional be giving advice on health reform than a Congressman who's only medical experience is giving the US Citizenry a rectal exam.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Define "real experts" though. I cringe and curse and throw things at my tv when I see news channels engage in a falsely equivalent debate wherein a professor of economics has to debate with someone from a "think tank," and it's presented as a reasonable discussion. Not "here's a dispassionate scientist who has morals and ethics debating with someone who's paid to find a certain conclusion and paid to hide those contrary to that."

So, sure, let the CBO in. But who else?[/QUOTE]

Interesting you should say that. If you've ever watched Fox News' flagship news program, Special Report w/ Bret Baier, whenever they have someone 'analyze' a policy decision by Obama its usually a Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute member.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Interesting you should say that. If you've ever watched Fox News' flagship news program, Special Report w/ Bret Baier, whenever they have someone 'analyze' a policy decision by Obama its usually a Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute member.[/QUOTE]

I'd love to see a study of what % of "experts" brought in on each TV network were liberal/conservative, and identifiably so (i.e. from Heritage or AEI, or conversely from Center for American Progress or the Brookings Institution, just to name a few).
 
I'm sorry, but all this talk of "obstruction" is complete and utter bullshit.

Democrats have control of the Whitehouse and both houses of congress. They can do anything they want, pass any bill they want. They claim to be afraid of the filibuster? Force Republicans to filibuster. They have the option of passing the senate bill as it stands by simple majority. They may have to suffer the repercussions later this year, but if they have any principles like they claim to have, then they shouldn't be afraid to pass what they say they need.

What they want is Republican capitulation and the appearance of cooperation so they can turn around in two years and blame all their misdeeds on Republicans as the architects. Then they'll blame the economic devastation on not being allowed to go far enough, paving the way for more socialist reforms. I can already hear the complaints of "Republican arm-twisting" that caused us to pass such a weak bill, but we'll fix it in the next go around.

I don't need any experts to tell me that my taxes will rise, that I will be forced to provide another luxury for another group of people who are unable or who choose not to pay for themselves. I've yet to hear from or meet any expert that can convince me that someone else is entitled to the benefits of my own freedom and hard work.
 
Let's not kid ourselves or anyone else - we're not talking about health insurance. We're talking about health care services for everyone. Insurance is something responsible people purchase in a pool to offset a potential risk. Those that aren't required to invest in it or buy a share aren't getting insurance, they're getting the payouts for free. From each their ability to pay, to each according to his need, right ?

Did it become a right to demand a service from a purveyor when I wasn't looking? Cool.
I need a new pair of glasses - can I just demand that you buy me a pair? By the way, I'm hungry too. Steak's on sale and my kids need some concentrated protein. I'll take 8 pounds this week instead of my usual 4. And don't forget the green beans - I need those too. Come to think of it, I need to have someone pay my car insurance next month. Can you pony up $600 for that? I need my car to get to work. Thanks. I'm sure thankful you want to do those things for me. You are a kind and compassionate person.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']
Did it become a right to demand a service from a purveyor when I wasn't looking? Cool.
I need a new pair of glasses - can I just demand that you buy me a pair? By the way, I'm hungry too. Steak's on sale and my kids need some concentrated protein. I'll take 8 pounds this week instead of my usual 4. And don't forget the green beans - I need those too. Come to think of it, I need to have someone pay my car insurance next month. Can you pony up $600 for that? I need my car to get to work. Thanks. I'm sure thankful you want to do those things for me. You are a kind and compassionate person.[/QUOTE]

I don't know why you are trying this hard to look so clueless.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']What they want is Republican capitulation and the appearance of cooperation so they can turn around in two years and blame all their misdeeds on Republicans as the architects.[/QUOTE]

This one little part is completely right.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm sure bmull is the first person that gets super pissed when the roads aren't cleared after a snow storm.[/QUOTE]
Isn't that the state's responsibility? Local, state, and federal government are 3 separate beasts.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I'm sure bmull is the first person that gets super pissed when the roads aren't cleared after a snow storm.[/QUOTE]
Shouldn't it be that he gets pissed off when other people demand that they be cleared?
 
[quote name='myl0r']Isn't that the state's responsibility? Local, state, and federal government are 3 separate beasts.[/QUOTE]

All take your hard earned money and redistribute it according to need and whimsy. Is there really a difference?
 
[quote name='depascal22']All take your hard earned money and redistribute it according to need and whimsy. Is there really a difference?[/QUOTE]
Well, bmull was going off about the Federal Government over reaching their boundaries(in his opinion), which you refuted with the idea of him being the first to be pissed when they don't clear his snow covered roads.
I was simply pointing out that, to my knowledge, it is the State or Local government that handle such a task.

Do I like the idea of DC taking my tax dollars to decide which NYC streets get plowed? Not really, I think that's more of a city/state deal.
So in this context, yeah, there is a difference.

And each have different levels of power, so I'd say overall there is some difference.

As far as taking my money, you're right, no difference.
 
[quote name='depascal22']All take your hard earned money and redistribute it according to need and whimsy. Is there really a difference?[/QUOTE]

Huge world of difference.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Huge world of difference.[/QUOTE]

I never saw much of a distinction, there is even less of one nowadays with the fed filling in the gap between so many state and local governments.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Huge world of difference.[/QUOTE]


I thought the whole issue with government spending was the general concept that it was inefficient wasteful and that taxes are a form of theft.... how is the basic philosophy behind any government state or otherwise different?
 
[quote name='gareman']I thought the whole issue with government spending was the general concept that it was inefficient wasteful and that taxes are a form of theft.... how is the basic philosophy behind any government state or otherwise different?[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't sum the issues up at all...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I can't speak for everyone, but that doesn't sum the issues up at all...[/QUOTE]

Is that not the basic concept of it? If not than could you sum it up? My assumption is that most anti-government spending/tax arguments those are the root premises. I am sorry if my assumption is wrong...I just can't seem to wrap my head around what makes state and local government spending and taxes different.
 
Exactly. What's the difference between $100 that comes out of your check to fund a state program compared to $100 that funds a federal program? It's all taxes right?

I haven't seen one conservative start a thread that everyone should be responsible for funding their own child's primary education because they're tired of paying for everyone else but there are five bazillion threads railing against taking money to pay for someone's visit to their doctor.

What's the difference? You'll pay to put out a fire in their house but they're on their own if they get cancer? You'll pay for police officers to keep us safe but you won't pay for medical care that keeps us healthy. You guys are humongous hyprocrites that live in a fantasy world that will never come back
 
Thanks, dude. I will celebrate with a small birthday cake cut into 300 million pieces. Everyone in America should get a piece of this too!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top